Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _______________________________________________ June 22, 2000 _____________________________________________ GSBCA 15295-RELO In the Matter of THOMAS A. McAFOOSE Thomas A. McAfoose, Buckhorn, KY, Claimant. Ronald L. Buckman, Finance and Accounting Officer, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, Louisville, KY, appearing for the Department of the Army. GOODMAN, Board Judge. Claimant, Thomas A. McAfoose, is a civilian employee of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. In October 1999, he accomplished a permanent change of station (PCS) from Cumming, Georgia to Hazard, Kentucky. The agency has denied claimant reimbursement for a portion of the costs he claimed for movement and storage of household goods (HHG). Claimant has requested that this Board review the agency s decision. Claimant received travel orders on October 8, 1999 authorizing him to move his HHG using the Government Bill of Lading (GBL) method. These orders stated: Movement of Household goods is authorized via GBL estimate 18,000 lbs/400 miles and 30 days of storage of HHG if necessary. Second vehicle is necessary to transport HHG. Claimant states that he and a person from the Logistics office attempted several times to contact the person who was to arrange the shipment of his HHG via GBL, but that person did not return his phone calls. His report date at the new duty station was October 25, 1999, but he did not receive my travel orders until October 8, 1999. As the person for arranging the GBL shipment did not respond to his inquiries, claimant was instructed by the initiating officer at his new duty station to use a commercial mover instead of a GBL. This individual informed claimant that he would be reimbursed at the commuted rate. His application for travel advance contains the notation: Due to short turnaround of orders, traveler was not able to move by GBL. Therefore, traveler will be moving by commuted rate. Currently, traveler has an estimate of $5338.78. Claimant set up appointments with moving companies and received estimates. He hired the company with the lowest estimate of $5338.78 for 8000 pounds. When his HHG were delivered, the final bill was $4761.98 for 6430 pounds. When claimant submitted his travel voucher, he was reimbursed for moving his HHG at what was purported to be the GBL rate in the amount of $3027.66 (for transporting 6,340 pounds the distance of 325 miles), and denied reimbursement for the remaining $1734.22 incurred. The agency s rationale for its decision was that the travel orders authorized payment via the GBL method. Discussion The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) and the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), which supplement the FTR provisions with respect to civilian employees of the Department of Defense, provide that the cost of shipping household goods may be reimbursed from any origin to any destination so long as the amount paid by the Government does not exceed the cost of transporting the property in one lot by the most economical route from the last official station of the transferring employee to the new official duty station. 41 CFR 302-8.2(e) (1999); JTR C8001-C. The FTR further provides for two alternative methods of reimbursement: the commuted rate method and the actual expense method. 41 CFR 302-8.3. Under the commuted rate method, the employee makes the arrangements for transporting household goods and the Government compensates him in accordance with published rate schedules. Under the actual expense method, the Government assumes responsibility for making shipment arrangements, ships the goods under a GBL, and pays the carrier directly. The FTR provides that for individual moves the commuted rate method is preferred principally because the Government is spared the administrative expenses associated with selecting a carrier, arranging for the carrier services and for packing and crating, preparing the GBL, paying charges incurred, and processing loss and damage claims. See Jeffrey P. Herman, GSBCA 13832-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,704. The FTR permits an agency to use the GBL method for an individual move, however, if it determines, under an appropriate cost comparison, that such a move would be more economical. Id. As the Board noted in Herman, the JTR makes the discretionary use of the actual expense method mandatory for individual moves when this method is determined, upon completion of a cost comparison, to be more economical. JTR C8001-D3. As we recognized in Samuel L. Marr, GSBCA 14039-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,788, at 115,368, "to the extent that the cost comparison required under the JTR has not been properly performed prior to the move, that provision becomes inapplicable, and entitlement to payment is governed by the FTR." Thus, in Marr, where the agency did not perform a cost comparison prior to the selection of the method for transporting household goods, the employee could be compensated under the commuted rate, as long the actual expenses requested do not exceed the commuted rate. In this case, we have no indication that a cost comparison was made between the two rates. Instead, we have initial authorization in the travel orders to move via the GBL method. Despite the claimant s good faith efforts to contact the Government representative who was responsible for arranging the move via the GBL method, the Government failed to respond. Given the time constraints, he was authorized verbally to move via the commuted rate, and this was so noted on his application for travel advance. Claimant is not seeking to be paid via the commuted rate, but seeks reimbursement for the costs of his out- of-pocket actual expenses. The agency has confirmed, in response to the Board s inquiry, that the claimant s total out-of-pocket costs for moving and storing his HHG do not exceed the Government s calculation of what the commuted rate would be in this instance. Under very similar circumstances, this Board has granted relief, allowing reimbursement of the employee s out-of-pocket expenses. In Steven C. Mantooth, GSBCA 14824-RELO, 99-2 BCA 30,424, no cost comparison had been made. The employee was originally authorized to move via the GBL method, but because of time constraints his travel orders were amended to allow movement via the commuted rate. The employee sought the amount of his out-of-pocket expenses. This Board granted the claim, stating that: [B]ecause shipping under the GBL rate was not feasible and the commuted rate was not requested [by claimant], the fact that there was no cost comparison between the two methods prior to the move in this case is irrelevant. The absence of such cost comparison here does not preclude claimant from recovering his out-of- pocket expenses since the agency has otherwise determined him to be entitled to reimbursement for transporting his HHG. . . . Claimant may be reimbursed for the amount of his documented allowable actual expenses for moving his HHG. The only significant difference in the instant case from the situation in Mantooth is that claimant s travel orders were not amended to reflect the verbal authorization to ship his HHG via the commuted rate. The agency can retroactively amend claimant's travel orders when the facts and circumstances clearly demonstrate that some provision previously determined and definitely intended has been omitted through error or inadvertence. Brian P. Byrnes, GSBCA 14195-TRAV, et al., 98-1 BCA 29,535; William E. Day, 14640-RELO, GSBCA 99-2 BCA 30,421. In this instance, it is clear that it was determined before claimant s move that he was to move via the commuted rate, that it was definitely intended for him to do so, and that his travel orders omitted this authorization through error or inadvertence. The agency should retroactively amend claimant s travel orders to reflect this intended authorization, and authorize reimbursement of the amount sought by claimant. The record contains clear documentation of the amount paid by claimant for the transportation and storage of his HHG and the amount reimbursed by the agency. The amount sought by claimant, $1734.22, is the difference between claimant s documented costs and the amount reimbursed to date. Claimant is entitled to reimbursement for the amount he seeks. Decision The claim is granted. __________________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge